With that analogy, you are supposing that people of faith have some special way of attaining evidence (like people with eyesight have) and this is a claim which not only has no evidence, but has evidence to the contrary.

Consider a group of people, all looking together, and yet all seeing wildly different things, one person describing visions completely contrary to another’s, etc. Would the blind person among them be wrong to be skeptical of their “sight”?

People of faith are still ‘people,’ human. They have no special access to knowledge, but maybe they pay attention to litlle clues, even silent stirrings of the heart that non-theists discount. Some experiences are life-changing, actually making changes to people’s personalities. These involve emotion, which I think modern man is nowhere near understanding.

I would agree that a blind person should be skeptical, hearing 3 or more people describe something differently. Yet he or she would like to see that something for herself. Skepticism seeks to penetrate words, statements, etc., to the heart of the matter, to the ground of truth.

There are two hypotheses that remain equally unproven and unprovable and they are both made from the same cognitive vacuum.

1. G(g)od(s) (supreme being(s))
2. Self (that which progressively comes into being when we begin to recognize the object in the mirror as “me”)

Both are merely namespaces the human mind gives to the “context” in which all things appear and disappear and neither are found outside the projection that produces them.

Both are made of the same “consciousness” and are, in any substantive sense, completely equal.
Yet for the duration of the drama being played out one apparently dictates while the other supplicates.

For the characters in the drama it is a matter of life and death, heaven and hell, bliss and torment.

But, for all that ever really is, it is images projected on a blank screen by a projector that is itself a projection on that blank screen.

To truly enjoy life/“the show” one must walk the razor’s edge of being meaningfully involved in the illusion while still maintaining an awareness that it is one when that involvement begins to become entrapment.

This is not always possible to do because the self made of human cognition is so convincingly a character in the story to itself that it can no longer feel the connection to it’s true substance.

And that is the point at which something many people call “meditation” can come to the rescue.

My 2 cents.

If one demands evidence for God one must also demand evidence for that which apparently needs it.

“Money is like manure, its only good if you spread it around.” —Winston Churchill

The god is not evident, it may be a figment of the self’s imagination.

That’s where the difference lies: no, they are not in any substantive sense completely equal, just like there is a difference between santa claus and the self.

Sam Harris, again, underlines this, especially when he mentions that these “wishy washy” god-as-self-flames-on-the-wall philosophy mumbo jumbo, are in fact not the gods that most of humanity is talking about. So it makes no sense to reduce god to self, and to never be able to call a spade a spade.

The god is not evident, it may be a figment of the self’s imagination.

That’s where the difference lies: no, they are not in any substantive sense completely equal, just like there is a difference between santa claus and the self.

Sam Harris, again, underlines this, especially when he mentions that these “wishy washy” god-as-self-flames-on-the-wall philosophy mumbo jumbo, are in fact not the gods that most of humanity is talking about. So it makes no sense to reduce god to self, and to never be able to call a spade a spade.

If you mean self as consciousness or awareness yes it does exist.

However you’ll find no supporting evidence outside the concepts that created it for the self that many refer to as ego.

“Money is like manure, its only good if you spread it around.” —Winston Churchill

I often think about the world as a stage and we as actors upon it. In these musings I ask ........ “What is the purpose of the play?” If it is indeed a play, it must have a purpose. Is it to entertain, educate, develop individuals, develop groups, keep the world moving forward, overcome entropy etc. If it is a play and the suffering is an illusion, it answers some of the questions about ..... “Why would a loving God allow evil and suffering?” If there is no such thing as time, is time an imaginative prop in the play to give meaning and value to the characters roles? If it is a play, were Hitler & Pol Pot evil or just playing their roles for the purpose of Gods “Play”?

@ GenerousGeorge: those are intelligent questions about the world around us & the meaning of it all. I ask the same questions & the answer I’ve come up with is that the “play” or game has a double purpose,viz., God’s entertainment & our salvation. The philososphy of existentialism, which I have an affinity for, sees the world as essentially meaningless & absurd and seeks meaning in handling this brute fact in dignity & justice (Camus) or with good faith (Sartre). Also there is a Christian and/or theisitic version of existentialism that makes use of the world’s religions, e.g., Judaism, African primitive belief, and the musings of thinkers like Kierkegaard to deal with being. Heidegger had something to say about ‘time.’ Have you checked him out? Anyway, existentialism & the Judeo-Christian tradition of the west reinforce each other in the value they place upon the human individual and her conscience and, contra Sam Harris, her free will. GenerousGeorge, if you like to think of the world as ‘stage,’ you probably have an understanding of the ‘director’ of the play of actors upon it. It is a strange & beautiful production I think.

Thanks Pauly ..... I understand and mostly agree with your thoughtful response. You say, “I must have a knowledge of the “Director” of the play.” It is interesting that you would make the Director an individual or person. I don’t think that the answer is that simple. It may just be an “improvisational play” that has no director. For sure, whomever or whatever carries out the function or direction of the play is difficult to imagine. “His ways are not our ways.” ........... makes for difficult understanding of the big picture of all that. One thing seems probable, the more plot twists, characters, sets, locations the director introduces to the play, the more the characterfs develop and the more fascinating the play to the audience. hmmmmmm .... wonder who is in the audience??

Demanding evidence for the existence of God, the supreme Being, is like a blind person asking to see. Sometimes, blindness can be cured.

It’s a responsible response. Faith is no virtue. We don’t think this way in any other aspect of life. In any other area of human endeavor, people who believe very far fetched propositions merely on faith usually have a legal guardian appointed to oversee their well-being, or are institutionalized.

Just how polite am I expected to be when someone insists that Elvis is not only still alive, but flipping burgers in a cafe somewhere in Idaho? And blaming the person with standards of belief, as if they’re the one with mental health issues, is intellectually bankrupt, IMO.

Faith is the gift people give to each other that allows them to make outlandish assertions they have no hope of supporting in a coherent way. It’s the bane of the species.

Asking you to back up your extraordinary claims is a reasonable request. In fact, it’s the only possible response to godly claims, as far as I know.

Standards. Not for everyone, apparently. But neither is intellectual laziness, hence my atheism. May you soon be cured of yours.